Kind of neat to see the changes in Netflix speed by ISP from the time Net Neutrality started being overturned until the time the deals started being
made.

This should explain to people what they are doing but for those who don't get it:

The ISP's are basically saying that rather than treat data going over the servers on a first come first serve basis, data from certain people will be
processed before everyone else in the que. What this does by default is speed up service to organizations willing to pay (remember, they're already
paying for internet access) and everyone else slows down. It also allows them to single out a business and say "we want more money from you" and
slow that person down so that their data is processed last. If the business doesn't pay their website and business if it's internet based simply
becomes unusable. Remember, these fees are on top of the contract the company already made for service. You now pay not just for access but for
others to use your service.

To use an analogy lets say you're a restaurant. Someone comes in and orders a burger from you and you deliver it. However you don't let them eat
it until they pay another fee. The first fee was only to get the burger, not to do anything with it. A restaurant acting on this model would go out
of business in an instant. However the telcoms have divided themselves up into local monopolies, there is little if any competition. Essentially
they can use whatever model they like and if you have no choice but to accept their terms if you want service.

Lets say you're a business owner and have a website that you generate $500,000 in profit through sales per year. Your ISP can now track this and say
they want an additional $400,000/year for your website to remain functional. If you don't pay your website disappears and you lose all $500,000. If
you agree to the extortion you lose 80% of it. That is what they are doing.

To create another analogy lets say a local fast food restaurant has their soda fountain. It's hooked up to the city water supply to make the drinks.
In addition to paying for the metered water, the water company puts a meter on the soda machine. They now want 80% of the profit generated through
that machine as an additional fee to supply water. If you don't agree they'll simply shut off your service and your business will suffer.

That is what the removal of Net Neutrality means and it is what the ISP's are now doing.

I read his post, quite frankly I disagree with him. The basis of his argument (for those that didn't read or didn't understand it) is that the
ISP's need to pay to upgrade their network no matter what and that by being able to discriminate data based on user they can make those that use the
most data pay the cost of the upgrades. The problem is that if this works as he claims it doesn't actually shift costs, instead it delays the need
to build upgrades to the network. It's a strategy to reduce demand. What he isn't mentioning is that the US is dead last among developed nations
and just about average among every nation on earth when it comes to internet quality. To take a broadband example, I have the best internet
connection available in my town it's cable 20 down 1 up for $60/month.

In Seoul South Korea (one of the top nations in internet quality) the lowest tier of service is more along the lines of 100 down/20 up for $5/month.
You can actually buy gigabit internet there now for $20/month. Gigabit for those unaware of the distinction between megabit and gigabit is about 10x
faster than a 100mb/sec connection.

Our wireless networks are in even worse shape. In the US we have some of the worst quality phones and they don't work overseas, we also pay
absolutely ridiculous rates. My stepsister while living in London a couple years back had unlimited data, unlimited text, unlimited talk, and 500
minutes/month credited to people calling her before they would be charged. This was on a month to month basis, no contract. It cost roughly
$15/month USD. Oh, and it came with a free phone. Unlike those of us in the US when she went overseas (including to the US) her phone would continue
to work. Japan, Mexico, China, England, US, South Africa... it worked in all of them.

The reason for this is that our ISP's simply don't want to upgrade the networks, why improve a service when you have a monopoly? There's no
incentive to improve. There is however every incentive to make things more expensive.

What's happening with streaming video is that it takes a lot of bandwidth and it takes more every day from additional people using it and streaming
resolutions increasing. The network needs to be improved. The last time a major overhaul was done was in the early 2000's. The federal government
built the network and then handed it over to the ISP's free of charge to maintain and upgrade. We need to upgrade it again but this time the feds
aren't going to build a network and hand it over and the ISP's don't want to do it themselves (similar to how the oil companies need new refineries
but refuse to build them unless the feds pay for it) so the strategy is to discourage use in order to get more mileage out of the existing network.
By making websites pay additional money demand is going to drop, which alleviates pressure on the network.

In addition to all of this there's the TV angle which is the real motivator. The telcoms also provide TV service and people are cord cutting in
favor of watching their shows online. The ISP's don't like this because they're losing TV viewers which means fewer subscriptions and fewer
advertising dollars. The ISP's want to shut down companies like Netflix because Netflix is delivering their product at 1/10 the cost. The ISP's
claim it's a bandwidth issue but they've made moves that indicate that isn't true. For example Verizon has come out with FIOS which has a
bandwidth cap. However, the bandwidth cap doesn't apply to on demand TV shows that they offer. Comcast has done the same thing, as has Cox. If it
were a matter of bandwidth they wouldn't be capping internet but letting you skip the cap if you have TV service and are getting the TV shows from
them.

why improve a service when you have a monopoly? There's no incentive to improve. There is however every incentive to make things more
expensive.

Thanks for those two informative posts on here. I have a new insight to the issues. It is the same old one. Mono crapistic, bureau-garchy be
damned.

Ever see "Brazil"?

I've never seen Brazil. The rabbit hole goes a little deeper here too, above is just a summary but the truth is that the telcoms are the most
powerful corporations in the US, even more so than the banks believe it or not. If they wanted to they could start a riot in a city simply by
shutting off communications. They could even remove the ability of law enforcement to respond by shutting off their communications.

The reason the FCC isn't fighting over Net Neutrality is because this very thing was threatened. They were told by the telcoms that unless Net
Neutrality is removed they will put US communications back 100 years and oppose every single thing the FCC tries to do from now until they
capitulate.

The telcoms need broken up, and they probably need to be reclassified as common carriers. This whole thing has been building for a couple years now
but it is significant. What "the industry" wants is getting preference over what the people want and it's not even due to a money=speech issue.
It's because industry is dictating the terms they want for legislation and the government is powerless to fight back.

Remember in the 20's when the mob owned the police? That same thing is happening now with the telcoms and the FCC.

Oh and I want to add on, this system the ISP's are coming out with was fully unnecessary. Something many might not be aware of is that there's
business class internet plans, these range from small business plans that you may find in a local coffee shop up to huge custom contracts for a
company like Netflix. These contracts come with speed guarantees, upload/download, and are designed to hit their peaks much more often. More so than
residential service these also have bandwidth caps on them (or the customer pays for an unlimited cap tier). In the case of Netflix if Comcast was
unhappy with the terms they were delivering Netflix service they could have changed the contract when it came time to renew it. Instead Comcast and
Verizon essentially got away with writing a second contract to double charge. They are going to do this to each and every one of us.

I own a couple of small websites myself, it's very possible in the near future that I'm going to have to shut them down because I can't pay the new
access fee (on top of the hosting fees I'm already paying). My long term goals are to create a couple of video games, these are games which require
online access... with the new laws (or rather lack of laws) these plans are essentially dead. If I want to market my game it needs to be to people
outside the US because I'm simply not going to be able to afford the bribe to the ISP's to make my content available.

In my earlier example I used the idea of the ISP demanding 80% of profits. If you choose to pay that's all well and good, but that's only to one ISP.
In the US we have 7 major ISP's (and a few regionals that are subsidaries of the 7 big ones). So if you pay the fine to Comcast what happens when
Verizon knocks on the door and wants the same amount of money? Then what happens when AT&T shows up? This is what happened to Netflix. They had to
pay a fine large enough to make them raise service costs. Then Verizon came by and forced Netflix to raise their prices again. Cox, AT&T, and
Cablevision have yet to get their shares. Plus Google if they act like businessmen. That's another 3-4 rate increases that Netflix is going to have
to dole out.

Then what happens when the ISP's raise the rates next year? That is their ultimate goal, they want a service like Netflix to cost more than cable due
to adding in billions in fees that get passed along to the customer.

Edit: And back to the competition side of things for a minute, not only do ISP's have functional monopolies but they have had it written into
city/state law that in exchange for them providing service the local governments will not allow any competitor to move in. This means that not only
are they the only service provider but by law no one is allowed to even try to offer a competing service. For example, when Charter moved into my
town 9 years ago the city had to sign an exclusivity deal with them. The city isn't allowed to let any other cable internet provider operate here for
100 years (91 more to go...). It's the pinnacle of anti competitive behavior, and it's something the FCC is supposed to address but can't because the
telcoms are too powerful. How many of us would stand for it if a restaurant moved into town, had all the competing restaurants shut down, and then
had a law written saying their restaurant is the only one legally allowed to do business in the area? Even a first year law student could win that
case... but imagine if that restaurant was also the only source of food in town and they said if you challenge them everyone starves. That is what
the ISP's have done.

a reply to: Aazadan
Refreshing to see someone who actually gets it. Cellphones in NA have gotten away forever charging double. They charge for both incoming and outgoing,
unless you sign up for a mega plan. Data usage as well is crazy. People just keep paying out the nose. Not sure why people tolerated it, but because
they did, the envelope keeps on getting pushed. These days, I don't have a cellphone, a regular phone, or even cable. Internet takes care of all of
that. Companies that charge out the nose for all three don't like that.

I don't watch many TV shows, movies, don't play many games; And those I do I get for free VIA torrents. And no, I don't feel bad about it a bit. If
they go out of business, I don't care. I will find other things to do with the little time I spend not creating things.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.